US v. Antonio Hemphill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:04-cr-00322-CMC-2,0:14-cv-02084-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999461923]. Mailed to: Antonio Hemphill. [14-6901]

Appeal: 14-6901

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6901

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO JERON HEMPHILL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:04-cr-00322-CMC-2; 0:14-cv-02084-CMC)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Jeron Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale,
William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6901

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Antonio Jeron Hemphill seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
an unauthorized, successive motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hemphill has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6901

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 10/24/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3